From the Archives, dated 2-2-2003

MARTYRS AND INFANTRYMEN

The term ‘martyrs’ has increasing currency in referring to those who have made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Since most of these heroes happen to be infantrymen, it is worth addressing the appropriateness of this term in an infantry forum. Doing so will enable us to dissect the core value – Duty. The nature of ‘duty’ has been of military interest since Shri Krishna dispelled the hesitation of Arjun on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Therefore, for the current generation of infantrymen to revisit this is warranted, if not an imperative. This article is an attempt in this direction.

 

Martyrdom, without going into etiology, is generally accepted as referring to the sacrifice of life itself in the defence or furtherance of beliefs and principles. It has been the fount of motivational energy, particularly in face of persecution. The martyrdom of the Sikh gurus exemplifies this understanding of the term. Historically, it has been linked with the profession of faith. Even today, the use of the term by the so-called ‘jehadis’ for their dead – ‘shaheed’ – underscores this.

 

Given its religious antecedents, it is debatable whether the term is unambiguously appropriate for the ‘Unknown Soldier’. The second reason uncritical acceptance of the term is not considered desirable is that it has not been applied for our departed comrades of our past soldierly engagements.

 

In the Indian tradition, the ‘kshatriya’ (Warrior) performed the duty of defending the society and state in the social division of labour. This was built upon in the British Indian army through the pseudo-concept of ‘martial races’. The instructive aspect of this system was the compelling concepts of ‘namak’ and ‘nishan’. In other words, the central idea has always been ‘Duty’ as defined by the nature of the calling.

 

The question that needs to be addressed is : ‘Duty unto what?’ This is best encapsulated in the line: ‘Theirs is not to reason why…’ It would appear that the defining of the ends and purpose of the military charter is not in the military’s domain. This echoes the Gita: ‘The fulfillment of duty is its own reward.’ The conclusion is that duty beckons regardless - faith and belief being incidental.

 

A look at the problem through the prism of civil-military theory is in order. This theory underpins the modern Indian state and therefore it is important to internalise it. The apex of the military hierarchy is to fulfil the functions of rendering advice and management of the means of violence. The exercise of choice amongst options furnished by the military and allied agencies is that of the elected political head. Therefore, even our constitutional scheme and governmental structure reinforces the inherited tradition of ‘duty’.

 

The notable point is that ‘belief’ is subordinated to ‘duty’. Therefore martyrdom is an inappropriate appellation for those who have passed the ultimate test of devotion to duty. They have met heroically with a professional hazard, something the terms and conditions of service had made amply clear when they had signed up.

 

Having made a case against embedding the term in our consciousness, it is worth examining as to why this process is now underway. Firstly, there has been resurgence in religiosity in general, an unexceptional phenomenon under the onslaught of globalisation. Evidence of its penetration into the force is in scenes as the lighting of the lamp even when in uniform in inauguration ceremonies, vocabulary as ‘shivshakti’ etc. Secondly, there is a danger of the essentialist doctrine professed by Pakistan – the ‘two nation theory’ – finding acceptability in India. The essentially secular territorial struggle between two nation states in the making is being transformed into an ideological contest. Here, the importance of beliefs is inherent. Therefore the motivational ingredient is no longer ‘duty’ but ‘ideology’. This explains the utility of the term ‘martyr’ in the internal spread of such dogma. Thirdly, the media is implicated in its prevalence. Adoption of the term by us is evidence of the power of the media, particularly the visual media.

 

An illustration of the apprehension raised here is in order.  Take the case of the Pakistan army. The reliance on islamic ethos has undercut its professionalism, demonstrated in its repeated forays into the politics of its country. For them and their jehadist proxies, martyrdom may have some meaning. However, for a secular dispensation as ours, convergence of vocabulary is questionable. Ideology, either denominational or secular (eg. Communism) cannot substitute professionalism as a war-winning recipe.

 

In summation it may be said that the tendency of our doctrine on motivation may need a revision. Modernity demands that the secular liberal ethos prevail in the force. Whereas this is the hallmark of the Indian army – it is so only on account of its vigilance. The infantry, that bears the brunt of sacrifice, has to be ever more so – lest its professional edge is dulled by erosion in the understanding of the concept of ‘duty’. It must reclaim the ‘Unknown Soldier’ from becoming a ‘martyr’.